r moderate/balanced/demanding youāre on this edge where any of those volumes would work; but during your plan AT will adapt things differently for each of these training approaches.
Very interesting, itās fun to play around with the feature. My current focus for this fall is to raise the FTP a bit but no real important races until Spring of 2025 and using the General Fitness Feature recommends an aggressive approach.
Youāve answered your own question in your parenthesis. A lot of your recent TSS is from sustained Z2/Z3 work
Sometimes I have to type things out before I really process themā¦that definitely makes sense now that I think about it. Although I donāt think I can currently sustain 3 intensity days per week on my lack of sleep (18 month old still not sleeping through the night thanks to all those teeth coming in) the feature and volume recommendations gives me a lot of positive confirmation that if I could slowly increase volume and hit the 3 days/wk of intensity my coaches comment about the possibility of hitting a 370W FTP seems maybe achievable (thought it was absolutely crazy 6 months ago).
Blockquote (btw, crazy how well you can be consistent outside! You might be the best person Iāve ever seen
When my plan says z2 I stick to it! Combination of being a dad and always having to ride solo, very flat terrain, and being very type-Aā¦
Love the idea of this and seems like the next logical step. In playing with setting up a plan for next year, starting in January and ending in December (cyclocross season), it gives me a specialty phase in June. With no events planned for the summer, it seems that either having a more prolonged base or going back to build would be more appropriate. Or at least have the ability to switch plan phases (instead of just type of specialty phase type) would be helpful.
Bug 1:
Switching to masters and just raising Sat from 1:30 to 2 hours gives warning (even if much less intensity than above when there was no warning):
I guess it has something to do with the masters switchā¦but Iām still the same individual and if the plan is truly individualized to me, then all warnings should be consistent independent of that switch.
Bug 2:
Next funny bug is then setting back Sat intensity to 1:30 but therefore making Tue intensity 2 hours instead of 1 removes the warning (even if now 45 minutes more intensity and time per week) and just gives āadjusted scheduleā:
Bug 3:
Ohā¦even keeping Sat 1:45 intensity but raising Tue intensity from 1:00 to 2:00 removes the warning (from Bug 1 picture) and just gives āadjusted scheduleā which doesnāt make any sense:
I suspect what youāre seeing here are a window into how RLGL operates:
Cases 1 & 2: because Sat also has a workout on the following day (Sun!), increasing Satās duration can more easily trigger an RLGL warning, compared to increasing Tue or Thur duration (load) since Tue/Thur are both followed by rest days. ie. itās not just the total weekly volume/intensity but also the distribution of this during the week.
Case 3: here itās possible that the increased duration on Tue (which is ājudgedā to be manageable due it being followed by a rest day) means that Satās higher duration (load) is now judged to be less of an outlier. Of course, there might be an adjustment period of a few weeks as you got used to the extra Tue load, but once you had, you can see how Satās greater load would no longer stand out so much.
The above would be consistent with how Iāve observed RLGL working.
As far as commuting goes, if you use HR TSS estimation, those rides will be considered for your volume/intensity recommendations in your plan.
Thereās no new way to enter in commutes specifically when building your plan. You can add those commutes to your TR Calendar manually, though. Once you do the commuting ride, you can sync them up to the pre-planned ride you added on there.
As @higherleap said (and now confirmed by the rest of the team that worked on this here at TR), those repeat workouts will adapt and change as you complete them and move through your plan.
We can see how this can look confusing when viewing your upcoming weeks on your Calendar, though ā weāre working on fixing this issue so it wonāt come back up in the future!
Maybe thatās something for a future, updated version. I think what you just released is already a significant upgrade. Thanks a lot!
I noticed a potential bug: when I increased volume of my Sunday endurance ride by 30 minutes, I immediately got a warning. (That is even though the intense Saturday workouts and the Wednesday endurance workouts had both been shortened by 30 minutes.)
Can you describe the fundamental differences between the various goal/focus options?
I generally want to improve in group rides, but for example, I also have a 5-day trip to Southern France coming up in spring. Iām a big guy, aprox 100 kg.
Funny one. I saw the same, but itās a question of whether itās a feature or a bug. I think you could make an argumment for why itās flagging each one, based on the what precedes and follows the changes youāre making. I say āfeatureā because it seems to let you find the limit of adding in more training.
for exampleā¦ if i choose the recommended plan and generate my schedule i have 5 workouts with 3 intense days and 386 TSS and a Warning, but if i choose Demanding plan i have 6 workouts, 3 intense days and 431 TSS without warning and i can go up until 583 TSS without warningā¦
Another bug: if i choose tuesday with 1.45h workout i will have a warning, but if i put 2h i will notā¦ ahaha
Thatās a loooooong standing recommendation from my side. Would welcome this so much.
But Kudos TR finally laid hand on the Plan Builder. Which in my eyes is pretty late since that is the foundation the Team based all their other stuff around and it held the usability and adoption of all the following stuff so much back.
Currently trying the first steps with the new Plan Builder.
So far I encountered the following error (on Safari on Mac):
In the āTraining Scheduleā Step I can open the āSettingsā and readily click on the radio buttons for different number of workouts per day - but nothing actually happens. It always stays at the recommended start point.
I also canāt work around this by just grabbing one workout and try to pull it out of the week-frame so that it makes āpooofā and vanishes.
What I can do is trying to select different Training Approaches in the step before. But a) thatās certainly not how itās meant to work and b) itās very crude anyways as I have to go down to āConservativeā to get Plan Builder to suggest only 4 days per week for me.
What I like: once you arrived at the number of workouts per week you like you then can adjust the durations of each workout neatly. But of course, that still means you need to know what you do and you have to calculate everything on your own, still - or again. But now we are actually just there where the functionality and help for the user would have to start!
Oh - so this person only has or want to dedicate 4 days per week for their training, but they want a balanced or even demanding approach. And they have, say, 2 hours on weekdays and up to 5 hours on weekends available on their chosen days. How can I, Plan Builder, distribute the optimal work load this user can tolerate and strive with in that frame?
This is still rather unaddressed.
Also unaddressed - how other building blocks of a well rounded training approach would fit in. Mainly (but not only) strength training workouts. So using the Plan Builder, even with this new iteration which slightly improves a few things, still isnāt a one (or 8-click) affair and then youāre done with a sound training planā¦
After further examination of the outcome of the Plan Builder and experimenting a bit with it I deleted the result and just added a normal base plan with masters switch set on. That Masters switch is actually the best thing added to the functionality all around for me (and with applicability not just for masters).
I need and will adapt the training schedule on the fly anyways so that way is still the quickest and best way to get a decent base frame into the calendar for me.
